PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

Sorry but you are talking about aircraft concepts like they were real aircraft.

None of them flew... and not because they were not wanted but because noone could work out how to make them work... even today they have invested an enormous amount in making a tiny anti ship missile fly at mach 7-8 with a scramjet engine (Zircon)... do you really think making a 300+ ton transport plane do the same or three times faster is just a question of will?

At mach 24 there are enormous problems with heat... currently available engines would melt at such speeds... not to mention the nose and leading edges of the wings...

I am often accused of being too optimistic but reality has a place...

Lets make hypersonic anti ship and land attack missiles and look at hypersonic interceptors in 10 years time... bombers might come quickly or slowly depending on what progress is made with heat resistant materials and propulsion.

GarryB wrote:Sorry but you are talking about aircraft concepts like they were real aircraft.

None of them flew... and not because they were not wanted but because noone could work out how to make them work... even today they have invested an enormous amount in making a tiny anti ship missile fly at mach 7-8 with a scramjet engine (Zircon)... do you really think making a 300+ ton transport plane do the same or three times faster is just a question of will?

At mach 24 there are enormous problems with heat... currently available engines would melt at such speeds... not to mention the nose and leading edges of the wings...

I am often accused of being too optimistic but reality has a place...

Lets make hypersonic anti ship and land attack missiles and look at hypersonic interceptors in 10 years time... bombers might come quickly or slowly depending on what progress is made with heat resistant materials and propulsion.

OK I didn't mention spaceplanes to say "look you could have a mach 24 spaceplane to carry sandbags and water for trooops".

What I mean is, you can carry heavy weights at GIGANTICALLY high speeds. But yes, heat is the problem. Not fuel or weight so much tho.

And more relevantly, even in the 70s they weren't that far off a cargo plane sized SST. Mach 2.2 doesn't create that much heat. I mean this has been normal since the 1950s/60s.

And in overall terms, do you think ICBMs are easy to develop? Ofcourse not. They need huge budgets and development teams. But Russia NEEDS to develop them. If not, it will cease to be an independent state, maybe even total US hegemony would result. Hypersonic planes are an alternative to ICBM Mirvs etc, and therefore cost similar prices.

Finally, Tu-144 or Tu160M1 or M2 to Tu-244/cargo SST are not huge leaps over lengths of time we are talking about. Ofcourse, I agree, the question is how it would integrate into an overall mil strategy. Is it worth it? I think perhaps yes, as a derivative of Tu-160M2

GarryB wrote:Sorry but you are talking about aircraft concepts like they were real aircraft.

None of them flew... and not because they were not wanted but because noone could work out how to make them work... even today they have invested an enormous amount in making a tiny anti ship missile fly at mach 7-8 with a scramjet engine (Zircon)... do you really think making a 300+ ton transport plane do the same or three times faster is just a question of will?

At mach 24 there are enormous problems with heat... currently available engines would melt at such speeds... not to mention the nose and leading edges of the wings...

I am often accused of being too optimistic but reality has a place...

Lets make hypersonic anti ship and land attack missiles and look at hypersonic interceptors in 10 years time... bombers might come quickly or slowly depending on what progress is made with heat resistant materials and propulsion.

OK I didn't mention spaceplanes to say "look you could have a mach 24 spaceplane to carry sandbags and water for trooops".

What I mean is, you can carry heavy weights at GIGANTICALLY high speeds. But yes, heat is the problem. Not fuel or weight so much tho.

And more relevantly, even in the 70s they weren't that far off a cargo plane sized SST. Mach 2.2 doesn't create that much heat. I mean this has been normal since the 1950s/60s.

And in overall terms, do you think ICBMs are easy to develop? Ofcourse not. They need huge budgets and development teams. But Russia NEEDS to develop them. If not, it will cease to be an independent state, maybe even total US hegemony would result. Hypersonic planes are an alternative to ICBM Mirvs etc, and therefore cost similar prices.

Finally, Tu-144 or Tu160M1 or M2 to Tu-244/cargo SST are not huge leaps over lengths of time we are talking about. Ofcourse, I agree, the question is how it would integrate into an overall mil strategy. Is it worth it? I think perhaps yes, as a derivative of Tu-160M2

Russia is already working on its hypersonic glider weapon Yu-71 since 80's.

GarryB wrote:As I said... these were concepts... no where near operational or practical.

A space plane spends most of its time in space where heat is not a factor.

Inside the atmosphere it is the biggest problem and is directly related to drag.... another problem.

Sure you could fit an Energyia rocket to a 200 ton payload and move it 7,000km at supersonic speed but the cost alone would make it totally impractical to ever actually use.

In comparison you could build 1,000 An-124s which would be a million times more useful for rather less money.

This is very far from real... 1000 An-124? seriously?

The supersonic transport in military terms is a different concept than the subsonic transport. In fact supersonic air transport and subsonic air transport are perfectly compatible, and would have different roles. The role of the supersonic transport would be to work rationally in contested areas and to work when high speed is needed for fast deployments. While as you recognized in other topics the subsonic air transport can not work in contested areas because is very vulnerable, and obviously subsonic transport allows not a fast speed of reaction, but is cheaper to work in non-contested areas at lower speeds. Then both would have different roles and would be perfectly compatible, like the Typhoon armoured trucks are compatible with unarmoured trucks on land transport.

This can be a good moment to remember you some of your own words (PAK-DA topic, page 20):

GarryB wrote:Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

Read transport instead of bomber in your own sentence. It only requires a little of coherence.

GarryB wrote:the secret is to not fly transport aircraft in contested airspace...

If you are able to see all this, I really do not undertand your reasoning, because it would be very easy to be coherent and stop being skeptic (and maybe a little basher) about this project, that opens a new space for air transport in contested areas.

How can be better 1000 An-124 if as you said would not be to fly in contested airspace and as everyone knows would not allow as fast answer? It is a non-sense.

Supersonic air transport is a new concept for a new role, but at same time they are some real examples, the first examples, like the Tu-144, for passengers and of the weight class of the Il-76. Only need to be developed until to reach the goals that still are under definition according to the article of ruaviation.com.

The big An-225 has a empty weight of 175 t. It can carry a freight of about 250 t. The design is conventional, so a bit composite, much aluminium and of course a bit steel.

It is possible to use instead of aluminium alloy a magnesium alloy. Magnesium is a great material like aluminium, better leight weight. Magnesium is very problematic in the field of corrosion, but you can protect the alloy with the right coating. You can also use CFRP, a composite material. So it's possible to save realistic around 30 % of weight, if you know how. So the new supersonic cargo airplane could be in the field of around 150 t empty weight.

Even if the aircraft can fly supersonic, but mostly for cost reasons it will cruise subsonic, so the fuel costs will not be the main problem for the project.

Now the problems...Despite magnesium occurs widely in nature, it is a damn expensive material. The production of the fuselage is difficult and expensive, but not impossible.

Another problem are the turbofans, they produce now not enough thrust. You need a better version of the Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans and you need 6 or 8 of them! To create such a powerful turbofan is not the problem, you can also use a better fuel. The real problem will be the maintenance costs.

In the summary...The creation and the construction of a supersonic cargo airplane is not the problem, the gigantic costs will be the problem. And from my view...I see not the real huge advantage of transporting troops and tanks wit supersonic speed, 3 or 6 hours, who cares!? But it can be a keytechnology of russian aviation industry, if they are really serious and promoting the project. Also maybe the Tu-244 in the keel water of the cargo project will see the light again, it's a great project!

The goals for this project will be adjusted, but I do not expect a big downgrade from the published data.

The real example of supersonic transport aircraft, the Tu-144, for passengers, is an aircraft of the 1960s. To compare it with other areas, it is an aircraft of the age of the MiG-23 or the Tu-134.

The technology of the time of the Tu-144 has been surpassed by far (only need to compare the MiG-23 with the new Su-T-50). If a new supersonic transport aircraft is done in the next 15 years, the technological difference can be even bigger. The room for improvements from the Tu-144 is really big. Many new technologies remain to be applied to the big supersonic aircrafts, and also new improvements are expected in the following 15 years (maybe more).

The supersonic Il-PAK-TA project follows the right way, being compatible with the development of the subsonic transport technologies for the projects that Russia need (the replacement of outside components in some cases, the Il-214, and other projects for the next decade), with the development of other supersonic projects (update of the Tu-160, MiG-41, Tu-PAK-DA and Yak-135) and with the development of unmanned technologies (for maritime patrol, for combat helicopters,...).

Last edited by eehnie on Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:11 am; edited 1 time in total

No exaggeration... a supersonic transport plane would cost trillions. To develop and to operate.

The role of the supersonic transport would be to work rationally in contested areas and to work when high speed is needed for fast deployments.

Supersonic speed does not protect you from SAMs. It makes you more difficult to intercept, but would still be horribly vulnerable to interception.

Then both would have different roles and would be perfectly compatible,

The only way such a thing would be attainable would be to merge the two enormous weapon bays on a Tu-160M2 and fit it so that a 40 ton container could be loaded there for supersonic transport 6,000km. There would be no chance of transporting any vehicles, but people or some supplies could be possible... there would never be more than one and it would be expensive to use... and probably never be used.In comparison the subsonic models would be used all the time.

like the Typhoon armoured trucks are compatible with unarmoured trucks on land transport.

An armoured truck could still not operate anywhere near the front line and would only protect from the odd bit of small arms fire and the odd landmine.

Read transport instead of bomber in your own sentence. It only requires a little of coherence.

You clearly don't get it.

Think of an air defence force... each aircraft will have a flight range and a reaction time and a flight speed.

There simply are no interceptors in the world that could fly 2,500km from their base to an enemy bombers launch area in time to stop them from launching, which means the missiles are launched and the bomber turns and goes home and the interceptor has to deal with twelve cruise missiles or more instead of one large bomber. The high average speed of a supercuising bomber means even less chance of an interception.

Supersonic transports don't exist and wont be built in the next 10-15 years... there is nothing that needs to be delivered that quickly.

If you are able to see all this, I really do not undertand your reasoning, because it would be very easy to be coherent and stop being skeptic (and maybe a little basher) about this project, that opens a new space for air transport in contested areas.

You don't want air transport anywhere near contested air space... the whole purpose of giving the VDV their own vehicles is to be able to give them the mobility to be dropped in the middle of nowhere and to be able to drive to where they need to be.

How can be better 1000 An-124 if as you said would not be to fly in contested airspace and as everyone knows would not allow as fast answer? It is a non-sense.

You don't use transports in contested air space... they get shot down easily.

The big An-225 has a empty weight of 175 t. It can carry a freight of about 250 t. The design is conventional, so a bit composite, much aluminium and of course a bit steel

It is also very subsonic even with 6 enormous engines...

It is possible to use instead of aluminium alloy a magnesium alloy. Magnesium is a great material like aluminium, better leight weight. Magnesium is very problematic in the field of corrosion, but you can protect the alloy with the right coating. You can also use CFRP, a composite material. So it's possible to save realistic around 30 % of weight, if you know how. So the new supersonic cargo airplane could be in the field of around 150 t empty weight.

Do you know what the main component of a magnesium flare is?

Making a supersonic aircraft out of very light weight very flammable materials would be a mistake.

And again weight is not the total problem... even if the structure weight is zero the weight of fuel and payload and the volume you would need to contain it will make supersonic flight near impossible.

Look at an airship... when filled with hydrogen it weighs less than nothing... but you can't just put big powerful engines on it and make it supersonic.

Even if the aircraft can fly supersonic, but mostly for cost reasons it will cruise subsonic, so the fuel costs will not be the main problem for the project.

That is even worse... at least with a supersonic design you get a fast plane... with a plane that is only supersonic some of the time you have the increased cost of weight with all the extra engines and the extra fuel burn of the more powerful engines.

GarryB wrote:Do you know what the main component of a magnesium flare is?

Making a supersonic aircraft out of very light weight very flammable materials would be a mistake.

Don't worry! I'm a chemist and i have a bit understanding of materials.

A normal workpiece of Magnesium is not flammable, even in open flames it will NEVER ignite. It's different for magnesium powder or thin films, but alumium powder also burns very good, for example the thermit welding.

Burning aluminium

A fuselag consisting of magnesium alloy will never be a security risk.

The only big problem is corrosion, for example by salt water. But a good protection coating can protect easy magnesium.

GarryB wrote:That is even worse... at least with a supersonic design you get a fast plane... with a plane that is only supersonic some of the time you have the increased cost of weight with all the extra engines and the extra fuel burn of the more powerful engines.

I am not convinced...

Of course you are right! I expressed myself a little misleading. The fuel costs will be for a supersonic design far greater, than for a subsonic cargo plane (at every speed), even flying most time subsonic with the supersonic monster! My point was that the aircraft does not always have to fly in the supersonic range, but can if desired. Of course the fuel consumption in the subsonic range will be greater than compared to any other transport aircraft.

GarryB wrote:And again weight is not the total problem... even if the structure weight is zero the weight of fuel and payload and the volume you would need to contain it will make supersonic flight near impossible.

Look at an airship... when filled with hydrogen it weighs less than nothing... but you can't just put big powerful engines on it and make it supersonic.

You are complete right! An airship will have so much drag in the supersonic area, that you need a nuclear explosion to accelrate it to over mach 1.

But let 's take a look at the design of the Tu-144 or the Concorde. You will see both had a wingspan 25-30 m. The projecetd Tu-244 should have a span 55 m wide. So there is much air upward, to the span of big civilian birds today. Less empty weight, because of magnesium and composite materials, big lift, because of wingspan and you can manage a heavy freight and the weight of fuel. To overcome the drag you need a streamlined shape. So the big supersonic cargo plane would look most likely a gigantic Tu-144.

But I must also note that the engines do not yet exist today, to power the new supersonic cargo airplane. They are of course possible, but not existing today. You can't hang easily 10 engines at the aircraft, it's impossible, the weight would be too heavy.

From my perspective, the project is not impossible. Every problem can be solved! But the plane will be expensive to build and the worst very very very expensive to maintain. The RuAF has urgent "building sites", the PAK-DA is needed and they need a good lightweight multirole fighter, with reasonable stealth characteristics.

To deny the need of air transport for contested areas is not too smart, with evident cases around like Afghanistan (for the US), Syria, or even worse, like Yemen.

In military terms, there is a need to work for improvements on this area, and the answer to this need is being organized in Russia around this project. Supersonic air transport would be significantly less vulnerable, and more taking into account that the supersonic convoys can be strongly scorted by other combat aircrafts without make them to fly subsonic (increasing a lot the risks for the scort combat aircrafts).

Of course the use of supersonic transport in contested areas must be rational. You can not send these aircrafts where the best antiaircraft weapons are located in big amounts as you can not to send an infantry regiment where 2 adversary divissions are located. Nothing in war is invulnerable.

If you make a list of weapons that would be able to shut down strongly scorted supersonic transport aircrafts, the list would not be long, and the list of owners of them would not be long. The same lists for subsonic transport aircrafts would be significantly longer including even man-portable weapons of a lot bigger proliferation.

GarryB wrote:Sorry but you are talking about aircraft concepts like they were real aircraft.

None of them flew... and not because they were not wanted but because noone could work out how to make them work... even today they have invested an enormous amount in making a tiny anti ship missile fly at mach 7-8 with a scramjet engine (Zircon)... do you really think making a 300+ ton transport plane do the same or three times faster is just a question of will?

At mach 24 there are enormous problems with heat... currently available engines would melt at such speeds... not to mention the nose and leading edges of the wings...

I am often accused of being too optimistic but reality has a place...

Lets make hypersonic anti ship and land attack missiles and look at hypersonic interceptors in 10 years time... bombers might come quickly or slowly depending on what progress is made with heat resistant materials and propulsion.

How would be a supersonic transport convoy moved by contested areas? Let us to put it in perspective.

Of course the convoy would be strongly escorted. As example, we can think about a hypothetical supersonic convoy traveling at 1.7 mach from Russia to Yemen by Iran and the sea. The convoy can be formed by:

10 Il-PAK-TA with 50 armoured vehicles inside (the reports talk about 400 tanks in 80 aircrafts, not necessarily of the same type).10 MiG-41 interceptors10 Tu-22 strategic bombers for potential ground/antiship/antisubmarine work (a Tu-PAK-DA subsonic would not be able to do this work, really sad if true).20 Su-T-50 fighters of lower range joining the last part of the travel from an airfield in Iran.with some unit of electronic warfare

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

Don't worry! I'm a chemist and i have a bit understanding of materials

There is a reason the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are made of steel and titanium with very little or no aluminium or magnesium components.

They have reportedly developed some high temperature resistant aluminium, which would be very useful in reducing weight and increasing acceleration performance but at the end of the day a cargo plane needs a large volume... so we are talking balloons not darts.

A normal workpiece of Magnesium is not flammable, even in open flames it will NEVER ignite. It's different for magnesium powder or thin films, but alumium powder also burns very good, for example the thermit welding.

We are not talking about an external paint job... you want the structure of an aircraft to be made of materials that don't retain strength at high temperatures... that is a bad thing for a structure of any craft.

Plus the magnesium engine parts on Wright Cyclone engines caused a lot of engine fires for the B-29 in WWII and after...

My point was that the aircraft does not always have to fly in the supersonic range, but can if desired. Of course the fuel consumption in the subsonic range will be greater than compared to any other transport aircraft.

So don't you think a much more elegant solution would be a subsonic only transport plane and a single modified new Tu-160M2 for those very few cases where supersonic speed is required... the problem there is I don't see such an aircraft ever actually being needed anyway...

So the big supersonic cargo plane would look most likely a gigantic Tu-144.

So really... again a Tu-160 with the swing wing allowing shorter take offs and landings... and with new more powerful engines the potential for supercruising which should greatly extend range and reduce flight times and reduce fuel burn.

From my perspective, the project is not impossible. Every problem can be solved! But the plane will be expensive to build and the worst very very very expensive to maintain.

Not impossible, but very expensive and not really necessary in my view.

To deny the need of air transport for contested areas is not too smart, with evident cases around like Afghanistan (for the US), Syria, or even worse, like Yemen.

The cases listed don't include an enemy with air defence capability above about 6,000m. Supersonic transports in any of the above cases would make matters much much worse as they could only operate from very long very flat runways... a very easy target for mortar fire or rockets.

Nothing in war is invulnerable.

So why make them unaffordable too?

If you make a list of weapons that would be able to shut down strongly scorted supersonic transport aircrafts, the list would not be long, and the list of owners of them would not be long. The same lists for subsonic transport aircrafts would be significantly longer including even man-portable weapons of a lot bigger proliferation.

Actually anything that could get close enough to shoot down those subsonic transports would also likely shoot down supersonic ones.

The subsonic transports would be much cheaper and could also be used in much greater numbers.

But US has tested hypersonic aircraft successfully . eg.

X-15 is a liquid fuelled rocket... it is pretty much a manned version of a Kh-22M missile and is in no way a practical cargo aircraft.

It is a horizontal rocket.

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

A fleet like that would make the Russian operation in Syria cost more than the US operation in Desert Storm...

Moving armour is much cheaper by ship and in this case there were no foreign powers able to stop any Russian shipment of equipment. One ship could carry more equipment than 100 transport aircraft... it would do it much slower but just as safely and much much cheaper.

Ask any military man and getting armour somewhere by supersonic transport would be a joke to them... it would not even be something they would want because of the cost.

How would be a supersonic transport convoy moved by contested areas? Let us to put it in perspective.

Of course the convoy would be strongly escorted. As example, we can think about a hypothetical supersonic convoy traveling at 1.7 mach from Russia to Yemen by Iran and the sea. The convoy can be formed by:

10 Il-PAK-TA with 50 armoured vehicles inside (the reports talk about 400 tanks in 80 aircrafts, not necessarily of the same type).10 MiG-41 interceptors10 Tu-22 strategic bombers for potential ground/antiship/antisubmarine work (a Tu-PAK-DA subsonic would not be able to do this work, really sad if true).20 Su-T-50 fighters of lower range joining the last part of the travel from an airfield in Iran.with some unit of electronic warfare

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

A fleet like that would make the Russian operation in Syria cost more than the US operation in Desert Storm...

Moving armour is much cheaper by ship and in this case there were no foreign powers able to stop any Russian shipment of equipment. One ship could carry more equipment than 100 transport aircraft... it would do it much slower but just as safely and much much cheaper.

Ask any military man and getting armour somewhere by supersonic transport would be a joke to them... it would not even be something they would want because of the cost.

This kind of operation would take less than 24 hours in the refered to the air transport convoy and the escort. Your comment is far from accurate.

Don't worry! I'm a chemist and i have a bit understanding of materials

There is a reason the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are made of steel and titanium with very little or no aluminium or magnesium components.

They have reportedly developed some high temperature resistant aluminium, which would be very useful in reducing weight and increasing acceleration performance but at the end of the day a cargo plane needs a large volume... so we are talking balloons not darts.

Why there are bicycle frames today aluminum and not steel? In the 80ies nearly all bicycles frames were made of steel. It is not only a question of the material, but a question of processing, especially welding.

Article of magnesium alloys

Abstract magnesium alloys

Why are Mig-25 and Mig-31 not made of magnesium and aluminium alloys? Because they are too fast! In the area around Mach 2 you will have a heat development around 100°C. So, no problem for special magnesium and aluminium alloys. At faster speeds you have real problems with aluminum and magnesium alloys.

And why we are talking only about magnesium? Magnesium is used in the aerospace industry, but we have a wide variety of more lightweight materials, for example plastics used in aerospace.

eehnie wrote:How would be a supersonic transport convoy moved by contested areas? Let us to put it in perspective.

Of course the convoy would be strongly escorted. As example, we can think about a hypothetical supersonic convoy traveling at 1.7 mach from Russia to Yemen by Iran and the sea. The convoy can be formed by:

10 Il-PAK-TA with 50 armoured vehicles inside (the reports talk about 400 tanks in 80 aircrafts, not necessarily of the same type).10 MiG-41 interceptors10 Tu-22 strategic bombers for potential ground/antiship/antisubmarine work (a Tu-PAK-DA subsonic would not be able to do this work, really sad if true).20 Su-T-50 fighters of lower range joining the last part of the travel from an airfield in Iran.with some unit of electronic warfare

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

eehnie wrote:How would be a supersonic transport convoy moved by contested areas? Let us to put it in perspective.

Of course the convoy would be strongly escorted. As example, we can think about a hypothetical supersonic convoy traveling at 1.7 mach from Russia to Yemen by Iran and the sea. The convoy can be formed by:

10 Il-PAK-TA with 50 armoured vehicles inside (the reports talk about 400 tanks in 80 aircrafts, not necessarily of the same type).10 MiG-41 interceptors10 Tu-22 strategic bombers for potential ground/antiship/antisubmarine work (a Tu-PAK-DA subsonic would not be able to do this work, really sad if true).20 Su-T-50 fighters of lower range joining the last part of the travel from an airfield in Iran.with some unit of electronic warfare

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

This thread is surreal.

I would agree with Viktor Livanov, CEO of Ilyushin, not with you:

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2016/2/11/4995/

ruaviation.com wrote:Russia to Build World’s Biggest and Fastest Air Freighter

Russian Aviaton » Thursday February 11, 2016 18:58 MSK

Russia’s aircraft designers are setting their sights on a huge, supersonic cargo plane capable of transporting tanks to the field in a matter of hours. The general concept of this flying giant is expected to be ready before this year is out.

This heavy transport plane, dubbed the PAK TA (Perspective Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation), will be able to fly at supersonic speeds of up to 2,000 km/h, carry up to 200 tons and have a range of 7,000 km.

Eighty such planes are to be built by 2024, which will make it possible to ferry 400 heavy tanks or 900 lightly armored vehicles to the battlefield much faster than ever before.

The project is being handled by Ilyushin Aviation Complex, whose CEO Viktor Livanov said that “it may be implemented by 2030," and that the exact specifications were still subject to negotiations.

The PAK TA project, thought to have been underway for several years now, is to replace the current fleet of Russian heavy air freighters – Antonov An-22 Antei with a load carrying capacity of 60 tons, and Antonov An-124 Ruslan, which can lift 120 tons of cargo.

The only operating aircraft that can carry a comparable amount of weight is the Antonov An-225 Mriya, which was built for the Soviet Buran space shuttle program.

Why there are bicycle frames today aluminum and not steel? In the 80ies nearly all bicycles frames were made of steel. It is not only a question of the material, but a question of processing, especially welding.

Because bicycles are not subject to 300 degrees C friction heating in the leading edges... like they would in a supersonic transport.

And why we are talking only about magnesium? Magnesium is used in the aerospace industry, but we have a wide variety of more lightweight materials, for example plastics used in aerospace.

We are not just talking about magnesium... the vast majority of light weight materials for construction where strength is critical are not heat resistant... that is why the SR-71 was made of Titanium and the MiG-25 and MiG-31 were made of Titanium and stainless steel.

The project is being handled by Ilyushin Aviation Complex, whose CEO Viktor Livanov said that “it may be implemented by 2030," and that the exact specifications were still subject to negotiations.

Going to need ground breaking advances in engine technology... and by 2030... I would say that will be after Ermak or Il-106 has been developed.

They are clearly chasing a new requirement for high mobility for the Army with its heavy vehicles... this is all probably quite separate from the replacements for the An-22, An-124, and An-225.

eehnie wrote:How would be a supersonic transport convoy moved by contested areas? Let us to put it in perspective.

Of course the convoy would be strongly escorted. As example, we can think about a hypothetical supersonic convoy traveling at 1.7 mach from Russia to Yemen by Iran and the sea. The convoy can be formed by:

10 Il-PAK-TA with 50 armoured vehicles inside (the reports talk about 400 tanks in 80 aircrafts, not necessarily of the same type).10 MiG-41 interceptors10 Tu-22 strategic bombers for potential ground/antiship/antisubmarine work (a Tu-PAK-DA subsonic would not be able to do this work, really sad if true).20 Su-T-50 fighters of lower range joining the last part of the travel from an airfield in Iran.with some unit of electronic warfare

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

This thread is surreal.

I would agree ....

I know, right?"Tu-22 strategic bombers doing antisubmarine work".

As part of a neat little supersonic convoy.I think we should increase the numbers of the convoy by 50% to make sure it is even stronger.

eehnie wrote:How would be a supersonic transport convoy moved by contested areas? Let us to put it in perspective.

Of course the convoy would be strongly escorted. As example, we can think about a hypothetical supersonic convoy traveling at 1.7 mach from Russia to Yemen by Iran and the sea. The convoy can be formed by:

10 Il-PAK-TA with 50 armoured vehicles inside (the reports talk about 400 tanks in 80 aircrafts, not necessarily of the same type).10 MiG-41 interceptors10 Tu-22 strategic bombers for potential ground/antiship/antisubmarine work (a Tu-PAK-DA subsonic would not be able to do this work, really sad if true).20 Su-T-50 fighters of lower range joining the last part of the travel from an airfield in Iran.with some unit of electronic warfare

Maybe not with this exact balance in the units of every type, but this is approximately what we are talking about when we talk about supersonic transport in contested areas. A fleet like this would be as vulnerable?

This thread is surreal.

I would agree ....

I know, right?"Tu-22 strategic bombers doing antisubmarine work".

As part of a neat little supersonic convoy.I think we should increase the numbers of the convoy by 50% to make sure it is even stronger.

Like I said, this thread is now utterly ridiculous.

The alone ridiculous thing here is your attitude. A shame.

Today the number of submarines with some SAM capabilities is very very low, but this begins to change. It is very logical that in the future, strategic bombers that habitually work over the sea begin to have also some protection vs submarines. And the Tu-22 is not unknown in the Russian Naval Aviation.

What a rare thing, to see a strong escort in a critical transport operation...

First the supersonic transport aircrafts were very vulnerable, later when we realized that they can have a strong and effective escort flying at supersonic speed, the operation was too expensive (like Desert Storm, no less), and now, when we realized that would be a transport operation of less than 24 hours (likely without fire), there is a problem with strategic bombers of today engaging future SAM submarines. Well, we are advancing, we need only to realize that future supersonic strategic bombers for sea work, likely will be able to engage future SAM submarines.